the st. louis 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness: analyzing the policy from a social capital...

Volume 1, Issue 1 • 2009 • Article 6

The St. Louis 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness:Analyzing the Policy from a Social Capital Perspective

Allan Maram, University of Cape Town

Published on behalf of the Policy Studies Organization

Maram, Allan (2009) "The St. Louis 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness: Analyzing thePolicy from a Social Capital Perspective," Poverty & Public Policy: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 6.http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol1/iss1/art6

DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1004

©2009 Policy Studies Organization

http://www.psocommons.org/ppp

http://www.psocommons.org/ppp

http://www.ipsonet.org

http://www.psocommons.org

The St. Louis 10-Year Plan to End ChronicHomelessness: Analyzing the Policy from a

Social Capital Perspective

Allan Maram, University of Cape Town

Abstract

The St. Louis 10-year plan to end homelessness was unveiled in 2005. According to MayorFrancis G. Slay, the plan was a new strategy based on best practices. This analysis is not a detailedcase study of the St. Louis plan, but rather an examination of the extent to which social capital isone of the plan's key focus areas, and whether it can help address some of the challenges that theplan documents. The study concludes that the principles of social capital can be of importance toother cities seeking to alleviate homelessness.

KEYWORDS: social capital, homelessness, healthy communities

Author Notes: Allan Maram is is working toward a Ph.D. in Social Development at theUniversity of Cape Town. He is currently affiliated with the Department of Industrial Psychologyat the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa.

Introduction

In 2004, the United States Interagency Council on Homelessness and the U.S.A.

based National Alliance to End Homelessness, ignited a wide-spread movement

within the United States for cities to develop 10-year action plans to end

homelessness. To date, over 180 cities have formulated plans aimed at ending

homelessness within the specified 10-year timeframe. Many cities have already

demonstrated considerable success in reducing chronic homelessness, although

looming budget cuts and a deepening recession in the United States threaten to

derail this wide-spread success.

This paper will analyze the St. Louis 10-year plan using the assumptions

and theoretical assertions of “social capital.” The notion of social capital will

therefore be the conceptual “lens,” influencing both the formulation of questions

and the proposal of solutions. This study examines the St. Louis plan because of

the considerable success the plan has had since it was unveiled in 2005. This will

not, however, be a detailed case study of that city’s plan. Rather, its purpose is to

determine the extent of social capital as one of the plan’s key focus areas, and

whether it can help address some of the challenges that the plan documents. The

importance of social capital in alleviating homelessness will be of interest to other

cities dealing with similar troubles.

Background of the 10-Year Plan

In 2000, the National Alliance to End Homelessness released a publication

entitled, “A Plan, Not a Dream: How to End Homelessness in 10 Years.” The

Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Bush Administration

followed by endorsing the idea of ending Homelessness in 10 years. Based on

this endorsement, the Interagency Council on Homelessness1 challenged 100

cities across the United States to formulate plans based on incorporating the

recommended ideas. To date, over 180 cities have formulated plans setting a 10

year goal for ending homelessness.

According to the U.S. Department of Housing and Development (HUD),

these plans have demonstrated considerable success. In 2007, HUD announced a

12% reduction in chronic homelessness across the United States.2 According to

the 2004 HUD report “Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness”3

1 Reynolds, Felicity. 2008. “Are they Really Working? A Critique of the ‘10 Year Plans to End

Homelessness’.” Parity 21 (4): 18-19. 2 Ibid.

3 Burt, Martha R., et al. 2004. “Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street Homelessness.” Prepared

for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development..

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/ChronicStrtHomeless.pdf

1

Maram: The St. Louis 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness

The old paradigm was that street homeless individuals should

be cared more by charitable, often religious organizations,

rather than by mainstream public agencies. The old paradigm

relied heavily on emergency shelters, transitional housing and

sobriety-based programs. The old paradigm did not plan, or

expect, to end chronic homelessness.

The new approach recognized that the existing homeless assistance network was

not effective.

Permanent supportive housing programs had to expand, they

had to be structured for people with co-occurring disorders, and

clear and simple pathways from the street into housing had to

be available.

Based on an analysis of seven study sites, the report concluded that the

essential ingredients of a successful plan to end chronic homelessness were: “The

paradigm shift; a clear goal of ending street homelessness; community-wide level

of organization; strong leadership and an effective organizational structure; and

significant resources from mainstream public agencies.” Other factors included

significant resources from the private sector as well as strategies to minimize

negative neighborhood reactions to projects.

The 10 Year Plan for St. Louis

The city of St. Louis and St. Louis County have traditionally addressed

homelessness independently of one another. This is understandable, because St.

Louis is an independent city, separate from St. Louis County. Recently, however,

the 10-year plan to address chronic homelessness4 was unveiled as a collaborative

effort between the two. The plan notes that while the chronically homeless are a

small percentage of the overall homeless population, they utilize more than 50%

of the resources.

The 10-year plan estimates that as of 2004, there were 1,772 chronically

homeless persons in St. Louis. Data from the Housing Management Information

System showed that only 57% of the 1,772 chronically homeless individuals

seeking services had a last permanent address in the City of St. Louis—21% had a

last permanent address in St. Louis County, and 22% have a last permanent

address more than 100 miles outside the City of St. Louis. The City of St. Louis

had the majority of services and facilities in the region.

4 Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness for the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County.

2005. http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/598

2

Poverty & Public Policy, Vol. 1 [2009], Iss. 1, Art. 6

http://www.psocommons.org/ppp/vol1/iss1/art6DOI: 10.2202/1944-2858.1004

Some of the characteristics of the chronic homeless population included:

� 446 having a history of being abused, being the recent victim of

abuse, being pregnant, or being veterans of the U.S. military.

� Educational backgrounds that spanned the spectrum.

� 71% of the chronically homeless in the city (and 67% in the

County) were between the ages of 31 and 50.

� 691 of those chronically homeless individuals for whom ethnicity

was defined were African American, and 102 were Caucasian.

Ethnicity was not identified for the remainder.

� 57.2% of chronically homeless had substance abuse disabilities.

� 40.5% had physical health problems.

� 39.2% had mental health disabilities.

� 1.2% of the chronically homeless in the city and county reported

no mental or physical disability or illness.

The plan, which focuses on the goal of “achieving maximum self-

sufficiency,” creates a new strategy based on best practices. The foundations for

the plan are the adoption of the “Assertive Community Treatment,” and “Housing

First,” models of addressing the needs of the chronically homeless. The Assertive

Community Treatment (ACT) model brings teams of experts together to offer a

variety of treatment options in order to address the individual problems of a

chronic homeless person. The Housing First model focuses on “achieving

permanent housing for the individual; permanent supportive housing that provides

long-term services for the chronic homeless individual.” In sum, the 10-year

plan calls on service providers to orient their programs away from temporary

solutions such as emergency shelters and transitional housing, and to provide

clients with a variety of treatment options that are based on a professional, holistic

approach.

The implementation of the plan involves a collaborative effort between the

City’s and County’s Homeless Services Provider Networks (a consortium of

health and human service professionals, advocates, government officials,

representatives from nonprofit agencies, and homeless clients from the

metropolitan area), with the support of the City and County governments. The

plan identifies ten major tasks needed to implement the plan effectively. These

include identifying funding and resources, identifying the individuals that

comprise the chronically homeless population, establishing an inventory of

existing permanent and non-permanent housing for the homeless, quantifying the

needs for additional housing and increasing the availability of permanent

supportive housing opportunities to meet quantified needs. Additional steps

involve establishing an inventory of current services, ensuring that every

3


chronically homeless individual has access to all available services,

communicating the availability of services to the homeless, increasing awareness

of specific supportive services, and the ongoing solicitation of feedback from both

service providers and homeless individuals.

Defining the Problem

While social problems such as homelessness are objective phenomena, our

definitions/perceptions of them are socially constructed. Therefore, although we

know that that homelessness is a real phenomenon, the policies accepted to

combat the problem will depend largely on how we define and conceptualize it.

Another way to put it is to note that our theories about social problems are

intimately bound to the values that we espouse.4

A central question that arises in the literature on homelessness is whether a

“home” is a physical dwelling, or something which emits a sense of belonging.

According to Tipple and Speak, the concept of a home embodies rich ideas such

as comfort, belonging, identity and security.5 Somerville outlines seven key

signifiers of home: “shelter, hearth, heart, privacy, roots, abode, and paradise.”6

Homelessness is said to represent the contrary of these ideas, namely, coldness

and indifference. Consequently, it is conceived as a condition that produces

stress, misery, alienation and instability. As indicated, the 10-year plan focuses specifically on what it terms

“chronic homelessness.” In defining “chronic homelessness” using HUD’s

definition—“an unaccompanied homeless individual with a disabling condition

who has either been continuously homeless for a year or more or has at least four

episodes of homelessness in the past 3 years”—the plan’s definition fails to

account for many examples that would appear clearly to fall within the category

of “homeless.”

According to Rochefort and Cobb, in defining problems, people ask

questions that pertain to causality: What produced the problem? Where did it

come from? An important distinction is whether the problem is attributed to

individual versus impersonal causes.7 Explanations of homelessness have

traditionally been divided into two major categories, i.e. “structural” (e.g., the

economy, unemployment, the housing market, large-scale social policies) or as

4 Rein, Martin. 2002. "Value-Critical Policy Analysis." In Ethics, the Social Sciences, and Policy

Analysis, Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings. New York: Plenum Press. 5 Tipple, Graham and Suzanne Speak. 2005. “Definitions of Homelessness in Developing

Countries.” Habitat International 29: 337-352. 6 Somerville, Peter. 1992. "Homelessness and the Meaning of Home: Rooflessness or

Rootlessness?" International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 16(4): 529-539. 7 Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb. 1993. “Problem definition, agenda access, and policy

choice.” Policy Studies Journal 21: 56-71.

4



“individual” (e.g., mental illness, alcoholism, substance abuse, and a lack of work

ethic). 8 Jacobs and his collaborators identify two major ideological perspectives

as they relate to homelessness in this regard. On the one hand, defining

homelessness as a structural problem requires broad welfare measures. On the

other, the state minimalist approach defines homelessness a result of individual

fecklessness and irresponsibility. Structural explanations are said to engender

sympathy rather than blame or judgment, which are associated with individual

explanations. It is relevant to note, however, that responsibility requires the

ability to respond. Proponents of individual responsibility generally fail to

consider that many homeless people may be unable to exercise responsibility

because of some form of mental illness, addiction or disability. They thus

overlook the complexity of the problem.9 A different approach comes from Main,

who writes that the structural/individual dichotomy may produce interesting

debate, but it is not necessarily representative of modern thinking about

homelessness. Rather, contemporary perspectives on homelessness emphasize the

interaction of these two polar opposites. He points out that both causes are at

work in every social phenomenon.10

Multi-service centers, which are a key focus

of the 10-year plan, are an example of a policy initiative that reflects an awareness

of both causes.

Rochefort and Cobb go beyond the definitional struggle in public

policymaking, and beyond causation, to include descriptive qualities of the

solution.11

Considerations of social capital are important to strategies combating

poverty. Social capital refers to “the set of resources that inhere in relationships

of trust and cooperation between people.”12

There are three forms of social

capital: bonding, bridging and linking. Bonding social capital involves

relationships of trust and reciprocity within communities, such as a neighborhood

or ethnic group. Bridging social capital also involves strong ties, but crosses

boundaries of class, race ethnicity, religion or type of institution.13

Linking capital

refers to “ties between individuals and those in higher positions of influence in

8 Main, Thomas. 1998. “How to think about homelessness: Balancing structural and individual

causes.” Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness 7(1):41 – 54. 9 Jacobs, Keith, et al. 1999. “The Struggle to Define Homelessness: A Constructivist Approach.”

In Homelessness: Public Policies and Private Troubles, ed. Susan Hutson and David Clapham.

Cassel, London and New York, 11-28. 10

Main,Thomas. 1998. “How to think about homelessness: Balancing structural and individual

causes.” Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness 7 (1): 41 – 54. 11

Rochefort, David A. and Roger W. Cobb. 1993. “Problem definition, agenda access, and policy

choice.” Policy Studies Journal 21:56-71. 12

Warren, Mark R., et al. 1991. “The Role of Social Capital in Combating Poverty”, In Social

Capital and Poor Communities. Russell Sage Foundation: New York, 1. 13

Schneider, Jo Anne. 2004. “The Role of Social Capital in Building Healthy Communities.”

Policy Paper Produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation 13.

http://www.home.gwu.edu/~jschneid/research%20reports/Social.Capital04.pdf

5


formal organizations.”14

Social capital is not an alternative to providing greater

financial resources and public services to poor communities. Rather,

Poor communities cannot solve their problems on their own, no

matter how strong and well organized their internal social

capital becomes. They require greater financial resources and

better public services. Their residents need better education

and human capital development.15

Social capital, then, may constitute an essential means to increase such resources

and make more effective use of them.

Addressing Risks Associated with the Plan from a Social Capital Perspective

The idea of social capital is not mentioned anywhere in the 10-year plan. It would

appear that the development of informal networks and relationships, within the

framework of bonding, bridging and linking capital, might well help mitigate

many of the areas of concern documented in the plan, and could thereby help the

city on a long-term basis to sustain and improve the gains already made.

The 10 year plan identifies four areas of concern that could adversely

affect its implementation. First is the need to identify additional sources of

funding. Second, it is critical for existing service providers to be committed to the

principles underlying the plan; namely, The Assertive Community Treatment

(ACT) and Housing First models. Third, in order to implement permanent

supportive housing, it is essential to obtain the commitment of community

residents. Finally, it is necessary to ensure that there is more effective

collaboration between service providers so that the homeless can navigate the

system more easily.

Social capital can play a critical role in addressing at least three of these

concerns. A long-term strategy needs to be formulated to address the building of

bonding, bridging and linking capital. Initially, it is important to focus on

strengthening bonding capital within communities. It is interesting to note that

various studies have suggested that alienation from broader social institutions

leads to homelessness in the first place.16

17

Strong community institutions such as

churches, schools and PTAs are critical to integrating community members into

14

Brown-Graham, and Anita R. 2003. “The missing link: Using social capital to alleviate

poverty.” Popular Government Spring/Summer, 36. 15

Warren, Mark, et al. 1991. “The Role of Social Capital in Combating Poverty”, In Social


Baer, John, et al. 2003. “DSM-IV alcohol and substance abuse and dependence in homeless

youth.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64: 5-15. 17

Peled, Einat and Shimon Spiro. 1998. “Goal Focused Evaluation: Lessons from a Study of a

Shelter for Homeless Youth. Evaluation 4: 455–468.

6



society.18

They can assist in obtaining the commitment of local residents, which

is one of the key concerns mentioned above. Communities with greater social

cohesion are likely to be more tolerant, less cynical, and more compassionate

toward the homeless and the goals of non-profit organizations. Communities

wealthy in bonding social capital will also produce a large number of “joiners”

who will aid in the fight to end homelessness.

Poor communities require strong local institutions if they are to develop

the leadership of their members in external institutions in the broader society.

“Local communities can also provide the primary arena for the face-to-face

interactions critical to building trust and common understandings.”19

It is

important to note further that service providers in the plan need to build

relationships of trust with the homeless, who otherwise will not be inclined to use

their services. 20

Although local institutions play an indispensable role in building bonding

social capital, poor communities will remain weak and isolated unless they

establish relationships of trust and reciprocity with outside communities and

institutions. “Bridging ties can help bring greater resources and opportunities to

poor communities.”21

In the 10-year plan, one of the concerns mentioned relates

to the need to identify additional funding sources. Bridging and linking social

capital can serve as effective mechanisms to attract these additional resources.

Another concern relates to the issue of ensuring that there is more

effective collaboration between service providers so that the homeless can

navigate the system more easily. In order to have a full appreciation of the

importance of bridging and linking capital, it is helpful to consider the nature of

social welfare service delivery in U.S. cities, which consists of four overlapping

systems comprised of government, social service organizations, and

congregations. According to Schneider,

The government dominant system refers to agencies providing

services that are generally either provided directly by

government, through government contracts, or with significant

government oversight.22

18

Warren, Mark R., et al. 1991. “The Role of Social Capital in Combating Poverty,” In Social

Capital and Poor Communities. Russell Sage Foundation: New York. 19

Ibid. 20

Bhugra, Dinesh. 1996. Homelessness and Mental Health Studies in Social and Community

Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 21

Warren, Mark R., et al. 1991. “The Role of Social Capital in Combating Poverty”, In Social



Policy Paper Produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 30. Google this URL for PDF link:

http://www.home.gwu.edu/~jschneid/research%20reports/Social.Capital04.pdf

7


Furthermore,

The ancillary services system actually consists of several

separate systems focused on a particular need. While a family

may need assistance with housing, health care, youth services,

education/training, employment, and emergency services, often

each type of assistance is offered by a set of agencies with

limited connections to organizations providing another kind of

service. This silo style of service provision is pervasive

throughout the United States. The community-based system

exists alongside the ancillary services and government

dominant systems. This system includes organizations

chartered to serve a particular geographic area like a neigh-

borhood or people from a specific race, nationality, ethnicity,

or religion.23

Religious organizations comprise the fourth system. These may include

institutions that help individuals in their spiritual development or in their

relationship to the broader society.

Bridging and linking social capital can serve as indispensable tools for

recognizing that these four systems are essentially interdependent. They can

ensure that organizations within each of these systems interact with one another in

an effective manner to produce optimal resources and support for the homeless.

This would in turn avoid a silo-based approach to welfare service delivery.

A growing body of scholarship on social capital recognizes the

role and importance of institutions and communities in

economic development. If structured properly, opportunities

for groups such as the chamber of commerce and the local

development corporation to work together on a job strategy

provide a breeding ground for bridging and linking capital for

both the organizations and the people they serve.24

This paper concentrates mainly on the theoretical significance of social

capital within the framework of the 10-year plan. It is relevant to note, however,

23


Policy Paper Produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation, 35. Google this URL for PDF link:

http://www.home.gwu.edu/~jschneid/research%20reports/Social.Capital04.pdf 24

Brown-Graham, Anita R Brown-Graham. 2003. “The missing link: Using social capital to

alleviate poverty.” Popular Government Spring/Summer, 39.

8



that there are numerous implementation challenges associated with the concept of

social capital. For example, the development of social capital has to be seen as a

long-term effort. Consequently, how does one convince stakeholders in the plan

to invest limited funds in such a long-term effort? Furthermore, social capital is

an abstract concept and strategies for increasing social capital can therefore be

difficult to formulate. Finally, while norms of trust and reciprocity are generally

good for those individuals inside a given network, the external effects of social

capital are not always positive. “Not in My Back Yard!” is a good example of a

negative form of social capital.

Healthy Communities and Social Capital

A question that deserves attention is what is the compelling moral case for public

action to address homelessness, when there are so many competing claims for

public resources? In order to answer this question one needs to address some

basic philosophical questions that go back at least as far as Plato: What does it

mean to be human? What does it mean for the human being to live a good life?

How do we create communities that encourage human beings to lead good lives?

The principles underlying the tradition of Catholic Social Thought provide

an example of guidance in addressing these important questions. This tradition is

rooted in three basic principles: “(1) the inviolable dignity of the human person,

(2) the essentially social nature of human beings, and (3) the belief that the

abundance of nature and of social living is given for all people.”25

Two important

thoughts are associated with these ideas. First, the individual is portrayed as a

transcendent being, created in the image of God. As such, the human person is

endowed with a set of inherent positive rights which neither the state nor any

institution may infringe upon. Second, human community is seen as being part of

the expression of the fullness of human life and personality. It is through social

relationships, which constitute the basis of human community, that the dignity of

the individual is addressed. These ideas serve as a valuable lens through which to

view the building of healthy communities.

Although the focus on resources is certainly important, it is insufficient to

provide a comprehensive vision for social change. Most real world situations

require additional capital, and also more equitable distribution. Moreover, a more

transformative model of change encourages us to examine the structures that

promote underdevelopment. To limit consideration to the economic and social

models of change is to maintain rather than transform the system. In this regard,

it is relevant to note that social capital is important from more than a resources

standpoint. Relationships of trust and reciprocity have a spillover effect into other

25

Lebacqz, Karen. 1986. Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical and

Theological Ethics. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 67.

9


areas of community functioning (such as crime, health and education), which are

key ingredients of a healthy community.

Conclusion

The St. Louis 10-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness is, in theory, a

comprehensive plan. As mentioned above, one of the key criticisms of the plan is

that it only addresses a small percentage of the overall homeless population. To

date, the initiative has shown significant success. It is not clear what the effect

will be of looming budget cuts and a deepening recession in the United States.

Social capital may be able to assist the plan on a long term basis to sustain and

improve a number of gains already made, by addressing many of the concerns

documented above.

In sum, social capital may assist in developing better understanding of

homelessness. It also may serve as an important tool that enables us to build and

nurture healthy communities.

References

Baer, John and Others. 2003. “DSM-IV alcohol and substance abuse and

dependence in homeless youth.” Journal of Studies on Alcohol 64: 5-15.

Bhugra, Dinesh. 1996. Homelessness and Mental Health Studies in Social and

Community Psychiatry. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

Brown-Graham, Anita R. 2003. “The missing link: Using social capital to

alleviate poverty.” Popular Government Spring/Summer, 32-41.

Burt, Martha R., et al. 2004. “Strategies for Reducing Chronic Street

Homelessness.” Prepared for the US Department of Housing and Urban

Development. http://www.huduser.org/Publications/PDF/ChronicStrtHomeless.pdf

Holland, Joe and Peter Henriot P. 1983. Social Analysis: Linking Faith and

Justice. Victoria: Dove Communications.

Jacobs, Keith and Others. 1999. “The Struggle to Define Homelessness: A

Constructivist Approach.” In Homelessness. Homelessness: Public

Policies and Private Troubles, ed. Susan Hutson and David Clapham.

Cassel, London and New York, 11-28.

10



Lebacqz, Karen. 1986. Six Theories of Justice: Perspectives from Philosophical

and Theological Ethics. Minneapolis: Augsburg.

Main, Thomas. 1998. “How to think about homelessness: Balancing structural

and individual causes.” Journal of Social Distress and Homelessness 7(1):

41 – 54.

Peled, Einat and Shimon Spiro. 1998. “Goal Focused Evaluation: Lessons from a

Study of a Shelter for Homeless Youth. Evaluation, 4: 455–468.

Rein, Martin. 2002. "Value-Critical Policy Analysis." In Ethics, the Social

Sciences, and Policy Analysis. Daniel Callahan and Bruce Jennings, New

York: Plenum Press.

Reynolds, Felicity. 2008. “Are they Really Working? A Critique of the ‘10 Year

Plans to end Homelessness’.” Parity 21 (4): 18 – 19.

Rochefort, David A and Roger W Cobb. 1993. “Problem definition, agenda

access, and policy choice.” Policy Studies Journal, 21:56-71.

Schneider, Jo Anne. 2004. “The Role of Social Capital in Building Healthy

Communities.” Policy Paper Produced for the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Google this URL for PDF link:

http://www.home.gwu.edu/~jschneid/research%20reports/Social.Capital04

.pdf

Somerville, Peter. 1992. "Homelessness and the Meaning of Home: Rooflessness

or Rootlessness?" International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,

16(4):529-539.

Ten-Year Plan to End Chronic Homelessness for the City of St. Louis and St.

Louis County. 2005.

http://www.endhomelessness.org/content/article/detail/598

Tipple, Graham and Suzanne Speak. 2005. “Definitions of Homelessness in

Developing Countries.” Habitat International 29: 337-352.

Warren, Mark R., et al. “The Role of Social Capital in Combating Poverty”, In

Social Capital and Poor Communities, 1-28. Russell Sage Foundation:

New York.

11


the st. louis 10-year plan to end chronic homelessness: analyzing the policy from a social capital...

Documents